Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38725600›Full record

ArticlePhysiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada2024

Efficacy of a Psychologically-Informed Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain at High Risk of Poor Prognosis: A Pilot and Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

Amélie Desgagnés, Claudia Côté-Picard, Alain Gaumond, Pierre Langevin, Mathieu Piché, Gabrielle Pagé, Anne-Marie Pinard, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, Hugo Massé-Alarie

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04979403 (Efficacy of a Psychologically-Informed Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain With a High Level of Psychosocial Factors), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04979403 nacompletednot on this map

Efficacy of a Psychologically-Informed Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain With a High Level of Psychosocial Factors: a Feasibility and Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2021 to 2022Enrolled40ConditionsLow Back Pain, RecurrentArmsPhysiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Amélie DesgagnésFrom the: Cirris, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Claudia Côté-PicardFrom the: Cirris, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Alain GaumondBase militaire de Valcartier, Shannon, Quebec, Canada.
Pierre LangevinFrom the: Cirris, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Mathieu PichéChaire de recherche internationale en santé neuromusculosquelettique, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada.
Gabrielle PagéCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Anne-Marie PinardFrom the: Cirris, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Yannick Tousignant-LaflammeCentre de recherche du CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Hugo Massé-AlarieFrom the: Cirris, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of psychologically-informed physiotherapy (PIPT), which includes usual physiotherapy (UP) interventions, compared with UP, and to explore the preliminary effectiveness of the interventions. Method: People with chronic low back pain at high risk of poor prognosis (using the STarT Back screening tool) were recruited and allocated to PIPT or UP. Effectiveness of recruitment strategies, adherence to intervention, risk of contamination, and specific challenges were assessed. Functional capacity, pain, quality of life, kinesiophobia, catastrophization, central sensitization, and self-efficacy were measured at baseline, 6-, 12- and 24-week follow-ups. Results: Forty participants were recruited mainly by diffusing through Laval University's email list, and 10 physiotherapists treated the participants recruited. The retention rate of participants at 24 weeks was 72.5%. Adherence to treatment by participants and physiotherapists was very good. The risk of contamination was low, and the specific challenges identified were modifiable. Significant improvement over time in all clinical variables of interest, except self-efficacy, was observed with no difference between groups. Conclusions: As most success criteria were met, conducting an RCT evaluating PIPT and PU is feasible with modifications. PIPT and UP appear to be similarly effective.

Indexed as

feasibility studieslow back painphysical therapy specialtypsychologically informed careSTarT back

Identifiers

PMID38725600
PMCPMC11078249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.